Appeal 3304180
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
7 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
two storey side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The site is located at [site address] at the end of a terrace of two storey dwellings, in a prominent corner location at the junction of [address] and [address]. The front elevation is set back from [address], and the side elevation is set back from [address], respecting the forward building lines therein.
These setbacks, derived from the existing dwelling’s relatively large garden areas, help create a degree of openness within the street scene and soften the prevailing built form. Broadly speaking, they are an important characteristic of other corner dwellings throughout the area.
The proposal would introduce a two storey side extension that would continue the form and massing of the existing dwelling without sufficient subservience or relief. This would erode the openness between the side elevation of the existing dwelling and [address] and breach the forward building line. Given the prominent corner position of the site, this would be a very noticeable change in the pattern of development.
[name] appreciate a gap of around 1.4 metres has been retained, this is very limited in extent and would not preserve a sufficient level of openness, due to the scale and massing of the two storey side extension, which is significant relative to this gap.
Similarly, whilst there is a brick wall of appreciable scale enclosing the site, the scale and massing of the two storey side extension would be significantly above the height of the wall and associated erosive effects of the extension would still be clearly visible.
The general appearance of the proposal, insofar as it integrates with the appearance of the existing dwelling, is not disputed by the Council and has not been determinative in my assessment.
Overall, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policy DH1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2020, which among other things requires high quality design and placemaking.
Section 05
Other Matters
[name] acknowledge the planning history associated with the site, there is no evidence of an extant planning permission or fallback position, and I have considered the proposal based on its own merits in accordance with the development plan and any other material considerations.
The location of the proposal relative to services and public transport, or in relation to the effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, among other things, are not matters in dispute and have not been determinative in my
Section 06
assessment.
It may be the case that another planning application1 was made for similar development in the area. However, the full details are not in front of me to determine any potential implications under the appeal.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 415No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3304180
- Application reference
- 22/00569/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Oxford City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000178
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 32 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 29 July 2022
- Valid date
- 29 July 2022
- Start date
- 26 August 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 14 October 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 22009
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21